saerTaSoriso konferenciasaerTaSoriso konferencia

kavkasiisa da anatoliiskavkasiisa da anatoliis

adreliTonebis xanis arqeologiis problemebiadreliTonebis xanis arqeologiis problemebi

Internati onal ConferenceInternati onal Conference

PROBLEMS OF EARLY METAL AGE ARCHAEOLOGY PROBLEMS OF EARLY METAL AGE ARCHAEOLOGY

OF CAUCASUS AND ANATOLIAOF CAUCASUS AND ANATOLIA

19-23 noemberi 201419-23 noemberi 2014

saqarTvelosaqarTvelo

November 19-23, 2014November 19-23, 2014GeorgiaGeorgia

masalmasalebiebiPROCEEDINPROCEEDINGSGS

Tbilisi 2014 Tbilisi

UDC (uak) 902(479+560) k-144 p-93

konferencia tardeba ssip SoTa rusTavelis samecniero fondis dafinansebiT

(grantis Sifri CF/27/2-105/14) da saqarTvelos erovnuli muzeumis mxardaWeriT.

Conference is being held by fi nancing of Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation (code of grant CF/27/2-105/14) and support of Georgian National Museum.

proeqtis xelmZRvaneli proeqtis xelmZRvaneli Project Leader

goderZi narimaniSvili Goderdzi Narimanishvili

redaqtorebi redaqtorebi Editors

marine kvaWaZe Marine Kvachadzemarine fuTuriZe Marina Puturidze nino SanSaSvili Nino Shanshashvili

krebulSi warmodgenili mosazrebebi ekuTvniT avtorebs da SesaZlebelia ar

emTxveodes SoTa rusTavelis erovnuli samecniero fondis Sexedulebebs.

All Ideas expressed herewith are those of the authors, and may not represent the opinion of the Foundation itself.

ISBN 978-9941-0-7134-8

© g. narimaniSvili © G. Narimanishvili© avtorebi 2014 © Authors 2014

mTavari redaqtori,mTavari redaqtori, editor-in-chief,

ContentssarCevi

PrefacewinaTqmawinaTqma ................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................7

Tufan AkhundovAt the Beginning of Caucasian Metallurgy

tufan axundovitufan axundovi kavkasiis metalurgiis saTaveebTan kavkasiis metalurgiis saTaveebTan .................................................................................... ....................................................................................1111

Veli Bakhshaliyev New Neolithic and Chalcolithic Sites in Nakhchivan

veli baxSalieviveli baxSalievi

neoliTisa da xalkoliTis xanis axali Zeglebi naxWevanSineoliTisa da xalkoliTis xanis axali Zeglebi naxWevanSi .............................. ..............................1717

Farhad Guliyev, Bertille Lyonnet Archaeological Complexes of the Central Western Part of Azerbaijan in Context of the Archaeological Cultures of the Caucasus

farxad gulievi, bertil lione farxad gulievi, bertil lione

azerbaijanis centralur dasavleT nawilSi mopovebuli arqeologiuri azerbaijanis centralur dasavleT nawilSi mopovebuli arqeologiuri

kompleqsebi kavkasiis arqeologiur kulturaTa konteqstSi kompleqsebi kavkasiis arqeologiur kulturaTa konteqstSi ......................... .........................2525

Guram Mirtskhulava, Guram ChikovaniPhase of Transition to the Kura-Araxes Culture in Eastern Georgia

guram mircxulava, guram Ciqovaniguram mircxulava, guram Ciqovani

mtkvar-araqsis kulturaze gardamavali etapis Sesaxeb mtkvar-araqsis kulturaze gardamavali etapis Sesaxeb

aRmosavleT saqarTveloSi aRmosavleT saqarTveloSi ...................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................3232

Ashot PiliposyanExcavations at Metsamor

aSot filiposiani aSot filiposiani

gaTxrebi mewamorSi gaTxrebi mewamorSi ............................................................................................ ............................................................................................ 4242

Safar AshurovThe Problems of Kura-Araxes Culture in the Light of Recent Archaeological Excavations in Nakhchivan

safar aSurovisafar aSurovi

mtkvar-arasis kulturis problemebi axali arqeologiuri mtkvar-arasis kulturis problemebi axali arqeologiuri

gaTxrebis Suqze naxWevanSigaTxrebis Suqze naxWevanSi ............................................................................... ............................................................................... 5252

Aziza HasanovaInfl uence of Technological Anatolian Traditions Smelting Ancient Tin Bronze on the Development Metallurgy III Millennium BC on the Territory of Azerbaijan

aziza hasanovaaziza hasanova

azerbaijanis teritoriaze metalurgiis ganviTarebaze kaliani azerbaijanis teritoriaze metalurgiis ganviTarebaze kaliani

brinjaos gamodnobis anatoliuri teqnologiuri tradiciis gavlena brinjaos gamodnobis anatoliuri teqnologiuri tradiciis gavlena .... .... 6565

Mehmet Işikli, Gülşah Altunkaynak Some Observations on Relationships between South Caucasus and North-Eastern Anatolia Based on Recent Archeo-Metallurgical Evidence

mehmed iSikli, gulSah altunkainakimehmed iSikli, gulSah altunkainaki

zogierTi dakvirveba samxreT kavkasiisa da Crdilo-aRmosavleT zogierTi dakvirveba samxreT kavkasiisa da Crdilo-aRmosavleT

anatoliis urTierTobaze uaxlesi arqeo-metalurgiis anatoliis urTierTobaze uaxlesi arqeo-metalurgiis

monacemebis Suqze monacemebis Suqze ................................................................................................ ................................................................................................ 7373

Raphael GreenbergOx-Carts and the Kura-Araxes Migration

rafael grinbergi rafael grinbergi

xarebSebmuli urmebi da mtkvar-araqsuli migraciaxarebSebmuli urmebi da mtkvar-araqsuli migracia ...................................... ...................................... 9494

Thomas Stöllner, Irina GambashidzeThe Gold Mine of Sakdrisi and the Earliest Mining and Metallurgy in the Transcaucasus and the Kura-Valley system Transcaucasus and the Kura-Valley system

Tomas Stolneri, irine RambaSiZeTomas Stolneri, irine RambaSiZe

saydrisis oqros maRaro da adreuli samTo warmoeba da saydrisis oqros maRaro da adreuli samTo warmoeba da

metalurgia transkavkasiasa da mtkvris xeobis sistemaSi metalurgia transkavkasiasa da mtkvris xeobis sistemaSi ........................ ........................ 102102

Massimo CultraroA Transcaucasian Perspective: Searching for the Early Bronze Age North Aegean Metallurgy

masimo kultraromasimo kultraro

transkavkasiuri perspeqtiva: kvlevebi adrebrinjaos xanis transkavkasiuri perspeqtiva: kvlevebi adrebrinjaos xanis

CrdiloeT egeosuri metalurgiis Sesaxeb CrdiloeT egeosuri metalurgiis Sesaxeb ................................................................ ................................................................125125

Aynur Özfi ratNew Early Bronze Age settlements in the Van Lake Basin

ainur ozfiratiainur ozfirati

adrebrinjaos xanis axali namosaxlarebi vanis tbis auzSi adrebrinjaos xanis axali namosaxlarebi vanis tbis auzSi ......................... .........................139139

Ketevan Tamazashvili Bone and Antler Tools from Sakdrisi Gold Mine

qeTevan TamazaSvili qeTevan TamazaSvili

Zvlisa da rqis iaraRebi saydrisis oqros sabadodan Zvlisa da rqis iaraRebi saydrisis oqros sabadodan .......................................... ..........................................153153

Zviad SherazadishviliThe Early Bronze Age Kura-Araxes Culture Seals from Gudabertka Settlement

zviad SerazadiSvilizviad SerazadiSvili

adrebrinjaos xanis mtkvar-araqsis kulturis sabeWdavebiadrebrinjaos xanis mtkvar-araqsis kulturis sabeWdavebi

gudabertyas namosaxlaridan gudabertyas namosaxlaridan ................................................................................................. .................................................................................................168168

Şevket Dönmez Early Bronze Age Metallurgy in Amasya Province, North - Central Anatolia

SevqeT donmeziSevqeT donmezi

adrebrinjaos xanis metalurgia amasiis provinciaSi, adrebrinjaos xanis metalurgia amasiis provinciaSi,

Crdilo-centraluri anatolia Crdilo-centraluri anatolia ........................................................................................... ...........................................................................................182182

Stefano SpagniMetal Production in Eastern Anatolia and Southern Caucasus During the Early Bronze Age

stefano spanistefano spani

liTonis warmoeba adrebrinjaos xanis aRmosavleT anatoliasa da liTonis warmoeba adrebrinjaos xanis aRmosavleT anatoliasa da

samxreT kavkasiaSi samxreT kavkasiaSi ..................................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................................198198

Александр Орджоникидзе Некоторые моменты взаимоотношении Куро-Араксской и Беденской культур на Южном Кавказе ................................................................................205

aleqsandre orjonikiZealeqsandre orjonikiZe

mtkvar-araqsisa da bedenis kulturaTa Sexvedris zogierTimtkvar-araqsisa da bedenis kulturaTa Sexvedris zogierTi

momenti samxreT kavkasiaSi momenti samxreT kavkasiaSi ..................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................205205

Mindia JalabadzeBedeni Culture and Berikldeebi Settlement

mindia jalabaZemindia jalabaZe

bedenis kultura da berikldeebis namosaxlari bedenis kultura da berikldeebis namosaxlari ..................................................... .....................................................216216

Zurab MakharadzeThe End of the Early Bronze Age in Georgia

zurab maxaraZezurab maxaraZe

adrebrinjaos xanis finaluri etapi saqarTveloSi adrebrinjaos xanis finaluri etapi saqarTveloSi .................................... .................................... 226226

Givi InanishviliSome Apects of Nonferrous Metalworking in the Caucasus – Near East (III-II millennium B.C.)

givi inaniSviligivi inaniSvili

feradi liTonebis damuSavebis ramdenime aspeqti kavkasiasa da

wina aziaSi (Zv.w. III-II aTaswleulebi) ........................................................... 233

Nino Shanshashvili, Goderdzi NarimanishviliEnvironment and Dwelling in the Early and Middle Bronze Ages South Caucasus

nino SanSaSvili, goderZi narimaniSvilinino SanSaSvili, goderZi narimaniSvili

garemo da sacxgaremo da sacxovrisi adre da Sua brinjaos xanis ovrisi adre da Sua brinjaos xanis

samxreT kavkasiasamxreT kavkasiaSi Si ................................................................................................. .................................................................................................245245

Arsen BobokhyanBronze Age Musical Instruments of the Region betweenthe Caucasus and Taurus in Context

arsen boboxianiarsen boboxiani

brinjaos xanis musikaluri instrumentebi kavkasionsa da brinjaos xanis musikaluri instrumentebi kavkasionsa da

tavross Soris mdebare regionSi tavross Soris mdebare regionSi ...................................................................................... ......................................................................................265265

Marina PuturidzeFor the Assign of Middle Bronze Age Phases and Upper Chronological Limit of the Trialeti Culture

marine fuTuriZemarine fuTuriZe Sua brinjaos xanis etapebisa da TrialeTis kulturis Sua brinjaos xanis etapebisa da TrialeTis kulturis

zeda qronologiuri zRvaris dadgenisaTvis zeda qronologiuri zRvaris dadgenisaTvis ................................................. ................................................. 278278

Dimitri Narimanishvili Middle Bronze Age Metal Vessels from South Caucasus

dimitri narimaniSvilidimitri narimaniSvili

Sua brinjaos xanis liTonis WurWeli samxreT kavkasiidan Sua brinjaos xanis liTonis WurWeli samxreT kavkasiidan ................... ................... 286 286

7

winaTqma

liTonis damuSavebisa da samTamadno warmoebis CasaxviT kacobriobis istoriaSi

erT-erTi umniSvnelovanesi epoqa iwyeba. spilenZisa da oqros uZvelesi nivTebi

samxreT kavkasiaSi neoliTis epoqaSi Cndeba. liTonis uZvelesi artefaqtebi

Zv.w. VII-V aTaswleulis Sulaver-SomuTefes, leilaTefes da sionis kulturis

Zeglebze dasturdeba.

spilenZis damuSavebis kvaldakval adamianma brinjaos warmoeba daiwyo, rac

am epoqis udides miRwevad SeiZleba CaiTvalos. Tavisi teqnologiuri da

meqanikuri TvisebebiT brinjao xarisxobrivad sjobda spilenZs da mis danergvas

liTonwarmoebaSi udidesi progresuli mniSvneloba hqonda. meurneobaSi da

saerTod yofaSi liTonis iaraRis farTod danergvam aamaRla Sromis nayofiereba,

brinjaos sabrZolo iaraRma ki sagrZnoblad gazarda mosaxleobis sabrZolo

potenciali. brinjaos metalurgiis da samTo saqmis ganviTarebam xeli Seuwyo

brinjaos xanis kulturebis farTod ganfenas evraziis kontinentze. niSandoblivia,

rom Zvelma berZenma poetma hesiodem brinjaos epoqas - ~gmiruli xana“ uwoda.

brinjaos epoqa samxreT kavkasiasa da anatoliaSi Zv.w. IV aTaswleulSi iwyeba

da j. melaartis azriT, dakavSirebulia uruqis periodis mesopotamieli vaW-

rebis gamoCeniT anatoliaSi, romelTac surdaT nedleuliT mdidar aRmosavleT

anatoliaSi SeesyidaT liToni.

samxreT kavkasiis adrebrinjaos xanis kulturis Zeglebis koncentracia

liTonis sabadoebTan, maTi ganlageba satranzito gzebze, spilenZisa da brinjaos

metalurgiis ganviTarebis maRali done miuTiTebs, rom samxreT kavkasiis brin-

jaos xanis kulturebis Camoyalibeba da ayvaveba liTonis warmoebasTan aris

dakavSi rebuli.

adrebrinjaos xanaSi samxreT kavkasiis centralur nawilSi Camoyalibda mtkvar-

araqsis kultura, romelic kavkasiasa da axlo aRmosavleTSi did teritoriaze

gavrcelda. am kulturam mniSvnelovani roli Seasrula CrdiloeT kavkasiis,

anatoliis, Crdilo-aRmosavleT iranis da aRmosavleT xmelTaSuazRvispireTis

uZveles istoriaSi. arcerTi kavkasiuri kultura arc manamde, arc Semdeg ase

farTod ar gavrcelebula da arc aseTi SesamCnevi kvali dautovebia axlo

aRmosavleTis istoriaSi.

mtkvar-araqsis kulturis erT-erTi ZiriTadi maxasiaTebeli metalurgiis didi

aRmavlobaa. am dros Cndeba liTonis Camosxmis wesiT damzadebuli sxvadasxva

daniSnulebis iaraRi. mravalferovani xdeba liTonis samkauli. samxreT kavkasiaSi

metalurgiis swrafi da intensiuri ganviTareba axlo aRmosavleTis uZveles

civilizaciebTan urTierTobiT aris axsnili. araerTxel aRiniSna, rom winaaziuri

warmomavlobis nivTebi samxreT kavkasiis gavliT moxvda CrdiloeT kavkasiaSi.

adre da Sua brinjaos xanis samxreTkavkasiuri kultur ebis ayvavebis ekonomikur

safuZvels, rogorc Cans, kavkasiis spilenZis, surmis da dariSxanis sabadoebis

intensiuri eqsploatacia warmo adgenda. swored metalurgiam gaiyvana kav kasia

saerTaSo riso arenaze.

Zv.w. III aTaswleulis miwuruli da II aTaswleulis dasawyisi intensiuri

8

saerTaSoriso interaqtivobiT xasiaTdeba anatolias, samxreT kavkasias,

aRmosavleT xmelTaSuazRvipireTsa da axlo aRmosavleTis Sida regionebs Soris.

es interaqtivoba sxvadasxva formiT (vaWroba, samefo qorwineba, diplomatia,

samxedro konfliqtebi) gamoixata.

adreliTonebis xanis samxreT kavkasiasa da anatoliaSi mimdinare kulturul-

istoriuli procesi regionebs Soris mWidro savaWro-ekonomikuri da kulturuli

urTierTobebis fonze viTardeboda, razec calsaxad miuTiTebs arqeologiuri

monacemebi.

adreliTonebis xanaSi gavrcelebuli arqeologiuri kulturebis kvleva samxreT

kavkasiasa da anatoliaSi ukanasknel xanebSi intensiurad mimdinareobs. gaiTxara

bevri axali Zegli da gamoiTqva sxvadasxva Sexeduleba. didi yuradReba eqceva

sazogadoebis ganviTarebis iseTi mniSvnelovani sferoebis kvlevas, rogorebicaa

metalurgiis da miwaTmoqmedebis Casaxva-ganviTareba, preistoriuli religia da

kulti, sacxovrebeli da samarxi nagebobebis arqiteqturuli tipebi da genezisi,

preistoriuli vaWroba da gacvlis formebi. kvlevis sagans aseve warmoadgens

adreliTonebis epoqis arqeologiur ZeglTa topografiis, qronologiisa da

periodizaciis sakiTxebi.

SoTa rusTavelis samecniero fondis dafinansebiT Catarebuli saerTaSoriso

konferenciis - `kavkasiisa da anatoliis adreliTonebis xanis arqeologiis

problemebi~ - ZiriTad mizans samxreT kavkasiisa da anatoliis arqeologiur

kulturaTa urTierTobebis da liTonis warmoebis adreuli safexuris (Zv.w. IV-

II aTaswleulebSi) problemebis ganxilva, uaxlesi savele arqeologiuri kvleva-

Ziebis monacemebis gacnoba da samecniero SexedulebaTa gaziareba warmoadgens.

adreliTonebis epoqis arqeologiuri kulturebi saqarTveloSi, azerbaijanSi,

somxeTsa da TurqeTSi gaTxil araerT Zeglze dasturdeba da am periodis

istoriisa da arqeologiis problemebis Seswavlas didi tradiciebi aqvs.

miuxedavad amisa, saerTo pozicia konkretuli sakiTxebis irgvliv jer kidev

ar arsebobs da konferenciis aqtualobis erT-erTi maCvenebeli swored am

realobidan gamomdinareobs.

goderZi narimaniSvili,

Tbilisi, noemberi 2014 weli

9

PREFACE

With appearance of the metalwork and mining, begins one of the most important epochs in the history of the mankind. Gold and copper objects appear in South Caucasus in the Neolithic period. Ancient metal artifacts of the 7th – 5th mill. B.C. were discovered on sites of Shulaver-Shumutepe, Lailatepe and Sioni cultures.

Along with copper work, human began bronze producing, this could be considered as the greatest achievement of the epoch. With its technological and mechanical features bronze was of better quality than copper and its introduction in metalwork was of great progressive importance. Introduction of metal objects in housekeeping and agriculture as well as in everyday life in general, raised work productivity and on another hand, bronze weapons strengthened military capabilities of population. Bronze metallurgy and development of mining contributed to wide spreading of the Bronze Age cultures over Eurasian continent. It is signifi cant that ancient Greek poet Hesiod named the Bronze Age “Heroic Age”.

In Anatolia and South Caucasus the Bronze Age begins in 4th millennia B.C. In J. Mellaart’s opinion, beginning of the Bronze Age is associated with the appearance of the Mesopotamian traders from Uruk period in Anatolia. First aim of these traders was to buy metal in Eastern Anatolia, which is rich with raw materials.

The concentration of South Caucasian Early Bronze Age culture sites near mines (generally near copper mines) or their situation on transit roads, as well as their high level of metal industry, shows that the formation and rise of the cultures in South Caucasus in the Bronze Age was connected with the metal manufacturing.

In the Central part of South Caucasus in the Early Bronze Age formed Kura-Araxes culture, which spread on the vast territory of Caucasus and Near East. This culture played a signifi cant role in the ancient history of North Caucasus, Anatolia, North-West Iran and Eastern Mediterranean. No one of the Caucasian cultures, either before or after, had spread so widely or left such signifi cant mark in the history of Near East.

One of the main characteristics of Kura-Araxes culture is signifi cant rise of metallurgy. In this period appear objects of different purposes, made with metal casting technology. Metal jewelry became more diverse. Fast and intense development of metallurgy in South Caucasus could be explained with connections with ancient civilizations of Near East. Many times has been mentioned, that the objects of the Middle Eastern origin, got to North Caucasus through South Caucasus.

Economical bases of development of South Caucasus cultures in the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, as it seems, was intense exploitation of copper, antimony and arsenic mines. Exactly metallurgy guided South Caucasus into the international fi eld.

The end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 2nd mill. B.C. are characterized by intense interactivity between Anatolia, South Caucasus, Eastern Mediterranean and inner regions of Middle East. This interactivity was expressed in different forms (trade, royal weddings, diplomacy, military confl icts etc.).

Cultural and historical processes in Early Metal period in South Caucasus and Anatolia were developing in light of close economical and cultural relations between the regions. This is indicated by archaeological data.

10

Study of the Early Metal period cultures in South Caucasus and Anatolia undergoes very intensively in the last years. Many new sites have been excavated and many new theories were expressed. Great attention is paid to such important realms of society development as introduction and development of metallurgy and agriculture, prehistoric religion and cult, architectural types and genesis of living and burial buildings, prehistoric trade and forms of exchange. Subjects of the study are also problems of topography, chronology and periodization of Early Metal period archaeological sites.

The main purpose of the international conference `Problems of Early Metal age Archaeology of Caucasus and Anatolia`, which was fi nanced by Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation, is discussing the issues of relations between the archaeological cultures of South Caucasus and Anatolia and the problems of early phase of metal producing (4th – 2nd mill. B.C.) as well as introducing the materials from the new archaeological excavations and exchanging the scientifi c opinions.

Archaeological cultures of the Early Metal period are detected on many archaeological sites in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey, where is a long tradition in studying problems of history and archaeology of this period. Despite this, there is no common position concerning several problems, so currency of the conference proceeds from this reality.

Goderdzi Narimanishvili, Tbilisi, November 2014

11

AT THE BEGINNING OF CAUCASIAN METALLURGY

Prof. Dr. Tufan Isaakoglu Akhundov Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences

The Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography

Identifi cation of the chronology and forms of establishment of metallurgy in the Caucasus has been one of the key problems of archaeology for many years. This issue was highlighted in different works, and a series of special works were published; however, the problem still remains. The beginning of the metal age in the Southern Caucasus is usually connected with the appearance of most ancient carriers of productive economy traditions in this region (Нариманов, 1987). These traditions were for a long period dated back to the Eneolithic or, in other words, Copper & Stone Age dated back to the 6th-4th millennia BC for this region (Абибуллаев, 1982; Нариманов, 1987). In our works, we, declining to change the age of these traditions, radically denied the existence of Eneolithic in the Southern Caucasus and thus dated these traditions back to the Neolithic (Ахундов, 2003). At present, the bigger part of researchers proceeding mostly from calibrated data of radiocarbon analysis also tends to date these traditions back to the Neolithic through deepening their age to the 7th millennium BC. However, in contrast to us, their belonging to the Neolithic is being substantiated by not the nature of archeological complexes but through their artifi cial aging, which means they forget that the age of a monument alone is not an indicator of technical-cultural level predetermining the monument’s belonging to an epoch.

A small quantity of little copper items (copperware) was found during the research of monuments of these traditions. The copperware represents largely very small copper items made supposedly through cold hammering. However, there are also separate items supposedly made using a more complex technology. However, they either date back to the very end of this epoch (Абибуллаев, 1982) or their stratigraphic position on a monument is under question. Given that no traces of hot hammering have been identifi ed and that many of the existing discoveries were made through cold hammering, it is groundless to assert genuine local metallurgy in the Southern Caucasus in the said period of time.

When does, like in the case of carriers of such a tradition, local metallurgy appear in this region? Initial information about the existence of hot, i.e. genuine metallurgy in the Caucasus was obtained by Ideal Narimanov in 1988 under an archeological survey of settlement Leilatepe in the Garabagh region (Нариманов, 1988). This monument revealed, apart from metallic items of complex chemical composition made through hot hammering, direct traces of the process of metallurgic production. Based upon the complex of materials found from this monument, I. Narimanov outlined the Caucasus’ new archeological culture named the Leilatepe culture that he linked to population, which was genetically linked to carriers of the Ubeyd culture and had come to the Southern Caucasus from Mesopotamia (Нариманов, 1985), though he later did not rule out their Uruk origin (Нариманов et al, 2007). Thus, it for the fi rst time became possible in the Caucasus to substantiate local metallurgy, whose habits were attributable to carriers of the Leilatepe tradition. At present, the majority of researchers tend to link carriers of the Leilatepe culture to that of the Uruk culture depending on the methods of dating, through putting them in different phases of the 4 millennium BC (Ахундов-Махмудова 2008). We tend to date the core period of existence of monuments linked, to various extents, to the Leilatepe tradition, back to the second half of

12

the 4th millennium BC.

Over the passed time, there have been discovered some 40 monuments of Leilatepe tradition scattered over all regions of the Southern Caucasus. They are most densely represented in the Garabagh plain where more than 25 monuments are known (Ахундов, 2013). One of such monuments - the settlement Alkhantepe - was identifi ed by us on the Mugan plain in the southeast of Azerbaijan in 2006.

Alkhantepe is located 4 kilometers north of settlement Uchtepe in the Jalilabad region, at the absolute height of 41 meters, having the coordinates of N 39º 21’607’’; E 048º 27’ 720’’. The monument occupies practically a fl at territory without topographically expressed signs. The fi rst stage of studies of the monument covered 2008-2010 and 2012. As a result, it has been identifi ed that this is a one-layer, no less than 4-hectare settlement. The excavations covered an area of 200/10m/20 square meters. In addition, for the reasons of identifi cation of the area and primary topography of the settlement, fi ve stratigraphic prospect holes were laid within its territory, with each hole covering an area of 3.75/1.5 m/ 2.5 square meters.

Three-meter thick cultural sediments are located lower than the modern horizon. They consist of seven construction horizons, which in separate places are subdivided into thinner sub-horizons. At the same time, the whole cultural sediment is separated into two packs, between which there have still been conserved traces of tectonic shifts that were followed by a certain change in the culture of construction.

The study of this monument revealed, apart from the richest material of various categories, factual data indicating on the existence of metallurgic production in this settlement. Apart from separate metall things and their fragments, there were found implements, waste and devices of metallurgic production. There were also found remains of metallurgic and metalworking furnaces (Fig 1;2).

Thus, local metallurgy in the Caucasus is initially documented together with the appearance of Uruk tradition’s carriers represented in the Southern Caucasus by Leilatepe tradition’s carriers or, in other words, the Leilatepe variant of the Uruk tradition, who migrated to this area. They brought here their own skills of metallurgy that can be dated back to the middle-beginning of the second half of the 4th millennium BC.

What epoch did Leilatepe tradition’s carriers belong to and what happened next? Let’s turn back to the 1950s when we were not yet aware of the Leilatepe tradition and we were only making initial steps in the study of the Neolithic-Eneolithic in the Caucasus.

At the time, following the identifi cation of settlement Kultepe-1 at town Nakhchivan, cultural sediments underlaying Kura-Araxes tradition’s sediments, which were previously referred to the Eneolithic, the newly discovered sediments were initially dated back, in accordance with the “compulsory” succession in the periodization of epochs, to the Neolithic and Eneolithic whereas the Kura-Araxes carriers were unfoundedly shifted back to the Early Bronze Age (Абибуллаев 1959; Абибуллаев 1982). Later on, having excluded the Neolithic, they dated the whole lower layer back to the Eneolithic, though it would have been corrected to do the contrary, i.e. wholly date them back to the Neolithic. One of the few reasons, for which the newly discovered cultural layer of settlement Kultepe was dated back to the Eneolithic, was that it was found in the latter’s top horizons bordering and partially mixed with Kura-Araxes sediments of some metall items. The Kura-Araxes layer was not the earliest one on this monument.

At the time, there were commenced longtime unsuccessful attempts to fi nd certain transitional

Tufan Isaakoglu Akhundov

13

elements of links between “Eneolithic” traditions and Kura Araxes ones; these attempts took more than 30 years. The discovery of settlement Leilatepe and the subsequent distinguishing of the Leilatepe tradition partially resolved this problem. It became evident that there were no any successive rectilinear links between “Eneolithic” traditions and Kura-Araxes ones. In the chronological gap between them, being used in the Southern Caucasus was the Leilatepe tradition having no genetic links with either preceding Neolithic traditions or following Kura-Araxes ones. The new tradition, having found itself between the so-called “Eneolithic” traditions and Kura-Araxes ones, and also following the accepted rectilinear succession in change of the epochal belonging was “naturally”, without any argumentation, dated back to the Late Eneolithic, for the Early Bronze place had already been occupied by Kura-Araxes carriers that already could be shifted nowhere.

Thus, the Leilatepe tradition received the status of the Late Eneolithic one (Нариманов et al, 2007). In our opinion, this counters the real position of things. A proof of what we’ve said is the above-noted data about metallurgy of Leilatepe tradition’s carriers.Analyses of metals and waste of metallurgic and metalworking production obtained from these monuments identifi ed the existence in them of rather essential copper-based natural and artifi cial additives actually making some of these fi ndings bronze items (Table 1). The found purely copper items, under the existence of at least minimal fi ndings of items with additives, cannot be regarded as either dating or epoch-determining ones, for the purely copper items were also found in the very beginning of ancient metallurgy, and they exist today as well.

Leilatepe tradition’s carriers possessed all skills of metallurgy and metalworking, made rather large items, including implements and weapons that could infl uence on the process of production. In terms of technical-cultural level, they belonged to the Metal Age, were able to produce metal with additives, i.e. produced bronze, so they can no way be dated back to the Eneolithic, even Late Eneolithic.

The appearance of Leilatepe tradition’s carriers in the Caucasus marked the appearance of the fi rst local Caucasian metallurgy. It emerged not on the basis and not in the entrails of the Caucasian Neolithic but was brought to this region by Uruk migrants from their ancestral home (Ахундов-Махмудова 2008). Leilatepe carriers made the fi rst step in the Metal Age in Caucasus, noteworthy straight in the Bronze Age. However, this step in the Southern Caucasus did not receive its further logical continuation, was interrupted without any further development and so was the Leilatepe tradition itself. There were reasons for this. Perhaps, this was connected with the movement of the Kura-Araxes carriers, who cut off all communication links of Leilatepe tradition’s carriers with their Central Asian ancestral home.

As has been noted above, the Kura-Araxes tradition, initially referred to the Eneolithic, was later on automatically shifted to the Early Bronze Age. Researchers already questioned that this whole culture’s dating back to the Early Bronze Age is true. Its beginning was dated back to the preceding epoch, “determined” for the Southern Caucasus as the Eneolithic (Кавтарадзе, 1982).

Our analysis of Kura-Araxes monuments in the territory of Azerbaijan also ruled out this culture’s whole dating back to the Early Bronze Age, to which we, like some authors did earlier, tend to date back only the fi nal stage of its existence (Ахундов, 2004). The only difference between the previous authors and us is that we see the beginning of the Kura-Araxes tradition not in the Eneolithic, a period that we rule out, at all, from the epochal system of Southern Caucasus, but in the developed Neolithic (Akhundov 2004; Ахундов 2004). And we regard

AT THE BEGINNING OF CAUCASIAN METALLURGY

14

Tufan Isaakoglu Akhundov

15

only the end of its existance as a period shifting toward the Bronze Age due to the block of cultures of nomadic cattle-raisers that was being established in the Southern Caucasus at the time.

Metall (bronze) items found at early Kura-Araxes monuments in the territory of Azerbaijan consist, like the fore said Neolithic monuments (which, to be frank, reveal a large number of items), of small items only. Their number and mass lags behind that even of the found metall items from the preceding Leilatepe tradition. They are mostly decorations, which cannot anyhow infl uence on the processes of production, which, like before, were based upon stone-bone implements. In our opinion, this rules out dating these monuments to the Metal Age and makes it possible to regard them as Neolithic ones (Ахундов 2004).

Larger items, primarily, weapons appear, though in a smaller quantity than decorations, at Kura-Araxes monuments by the end of existence of this tradition, in context with then being established block of nomadic cattle-raisers, for whom weapons were one of the implements of “production”. Thus, the Kura-Araxes tradition represented, on the whole, a stage of transition from the Neolithic to the Metal Age, the bronze metal age, which can be called, as a working model, Bronzelite (Akhundov 2004; Ахундов 2004).

This was the second step in the Caucasus, after the Leilatepe tradition, in the Metal Age that received its further logical development in the full-value transition toward the Bronze Age’s successive cultures of nomadic cattle-raisers.

References:

Абибуллаев О.А. 1959, «Археологические раскопки в Кюльтепе», Баку.Абибуллаев О.А. 1982, «Энеолит и бронза на территории Нахчывынской АССР», Баку.Ахундов Т.И. 2003, «Об «енеолите» на Южном Кавказе», Azerbaijan archaeology &

ethnography, №1. Баку,34-41. Ахундов Т.И. 2004, «К проблеме эпохальной периодизации на Южном Кавказе (неолит-

ранняя бронза)», Azerbaijan archaeology & ethnography, №2, Баку, 5-18.Ахундов Т.И., Махмудова И.А. 2008, «Южный Кавказ в кавказско-переднеазиатских

этнокультурных процессах IV тыс. до н.э.». Баку.2008.Akhundov T.I. 2004, “South Caucasus in Neolithic and Early bronze age: the question of

epochs and periods”. In: A view from the highlands: Archaeological studies in honour of Charles Burney (Peters 2004), 421-436.

Ахундов T.И. 2013, «Памятники Южного Кавказа в свете проблем майкопской традиции и связей Кавказа с Анатолией». Problems of Maykop Culture in the Context of Caucasian-Anatolian Relations. Tbilisi, 47-52.

Кавтарадзе Г.Л. 1983, К хронологии энеолита и бронзы Грузии.Тбилиси.Нариманов И.Г.1985, «Обейдские племена Месопотамии в Азербайджане». Всесоюзная

археологическая конференция. Баку, 271-272.Нариманов И.Г. 1987, Культура древнейшего земледельческо-скотоводческого населения

Азербайджана. Баку.Нариманов И.Г. 1998, «Отчёт археологических исследований на поселении Лейлатепе в

1988 году». Архив Института Археологии и этнографии НАН Азербайджана.Нариманов И.Г., Ахундов Т.И.,Алиев Н.Г. 2007, Лейлатепе: поселение, традиция,

этап в этно-культурной истории Южного Кавказа. Баку.

AT THE BEGINNING OF CAUCASIAN METALLURGY

16

Tufan Isaakoglu Akhundov

17

NEW NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC SITES IN NAKHCHIVAN (AZERBAIJAN)

Prof. Dr. Veli BakhshaliyevAssociate Member of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Science,

Nakhchivan Branch, Azerbaijan National Academy of Science

INTRODUCTION

The south and southwestern limit of Nakhchivan’s territory is the Araxes River, one of the major rivers of the Caucasus. Neolithic and Chalcolithic archaeological sites are generally located on tributaries of the Araxes River, such as the Nakhchivanchay and the Arpachay. Very few Chalcolithic sites have been excavated to date. Moreover, the Neolithic presents only at the Kultepe I settlement, where the bottom layer can be dated to the Neolithic period. The same site has the earliest Chalcolithic material found so far in this territory. However the research conducted by us in 2010-2014 in the neighborhood of the settlement to Kultepe I, revealed more than twenty monuments1. Our results demonstrate that the earliest agricultural settlements in Nakhchivan’s territory have not yet received enough study. These sites are generally located in the valley of the Sirabchay River, which is a tributary to the Nakhchivanchay. Research indicates that many sites date to the late Neolithic and early Chalcolithic. Additionally, we noted the remains of copper, stone, and clay molds in some settlements (Marro et al. 2011: 70), which testifi es to the development of copper metallurgy during the Chalcolithic Age, as these settlements were not inhabited after this period. These settlements, which extended along the river Sirabchay and its tributaries, were probably founded to exploit the natural resources of this region. Along the Nakhchivanchay, Dzhagrichay, and Sirabchay wild cereals grow today naturally (Абибуллаев 1982: 206; Мустафаев 1961: 56). Moreover, the Nakhchivanchay valley is home to a large number of wild plants, which are now cultivated. Additionally, Nakhchivan has rich deposits of metals and other minerals that were also important for the development of the earliest agricultural cultures. Finally, the distribution of ancient obsidian from a wide range of sources testifi es to another important natural resources and provides another means to study interregional communications. NEOLITHIC SITES

Monuments of this period are presented by some settlements. One of them is the settlement Kultepe I, which was fi rst excavated more than fi fty years ago, during the 1950s and 1960s. O.A.Abibullayev originally dated the bottom layer “1а” to the Neolithic period (Həbibullayev 1959: 14), but in a reevaluation of the evidence he later hypothesized that it was Chalcolithic (Абибуллаев 1982: 24). Several other archaeologists have concurred with the original Neolothic date (Нариманов 1987: 133; Кушнарева 1993: 32-34; Seyidov 2003: 21, 39-40), however no radiocarbon samples were taken from this layer to provide an absolute date. Therefore, in 2013, we opened two 5х5 m sounding at Kultepe I. In the areas chosen, O.A.Abibullayev’s excavation completely removed the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age levels. The top layers of the sounding A contained Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic pottery. However, Early Bronze Age material also surfaced in the in Late Neolithic layers. Because the top layers of the settlement have been destroyed by erosion and a medieval garbage pit, establishing plans of buildings here

1. This work was supported by the Sience Developement Foundation under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan – Grant № EIF-2012 – 2(6) – 39/28/5.

18

is impossible. However, the radiocarbon determination from the top layer of the settlement Kultepe I is dated to 5600 BC2. The majority of fi nds from this level are represented by pottery, which are generally made of chaff-tempered clay, and have been fi red so that they are different shades red, sometimes with a yellow or gray core (Fig. 4).

Recent survey and museum research, however, indicates that Kultepe I is not the only Neolithic site in Nakhchivan’s territory. Study of the material in the Sadarak museum revealed three stone tools (Bakhshaliyev-Seyidov 2013: 1, photo 1, photo 2), parallels for which are known from Neolithic monuments of the Caucasus (Abibullaev 1982: tablo IV, 1; Badalyan et al. 2010: fi g. 3-1) and Eastern Europe (Археология Венгрии 1980: 387, рис. 238). V. G. Aliyev (Əliyev 1987: 61-67) has already published Chalcolithic pottery from this monument. However, our sounding did not provide much new information from this period, given the large size of the settlement, given its large size and the fact that it was intensively populated during subsequent periods, especially in Early Iron Age.

One of the sites that has been intensively surveyed and excavated is Shorsu. The settlement is located on the left bank of Shorsu River, a branch of the Sirabchay, on a natural hill (Fig. 1). On the southern part of the settlement, we opened a 10х10 m excavation unit. Excavation indicates that the occupation layer is not deep, only about 15-20 cm have been preserved. The matrix of this layer is defi ned by fi rm processed clay with white decayed inclusions and ceramics. There was no evidence of ash, signs of fi re, or animal bones here. Pottery was the most common fi nd, along with occasional chips of obsidian and fl int. Excavation revealed three squared rooms of stone construction, which were arrayed in one row. In one of them, there were big storage jars, buried in the fl oor. Establishing the level of the fl oors was very diffi cult, since eroded plaster had collapsed onto the clay fl oors and become melded to the original fl oor as part of post-deposition processes. One storage jar was found outside of this structure. It seems likely that each of these rectangular rooms represented independent households or other economic units. Traces of fi re and ash were not found within the rooms, although there was some evidence of fi re outside of this structure.

The pottery from the settlement can be divided into two groups based on manufacturing techniques. The fi rst group, consisting of four pottery sherds, is made of dense, chaff tempered clay. These ceramics have been fi red until red color and have a yellow slip. Similar material is characteristic of a late stage of the Chalcolithic.

The majority of the pottery belongs to the second group. This pottery is made of clay that has been tempered with both chaff and sand (90,1%). In some cases, there is little chaff temper, while in others it is quite heavy. Mixed coarse sand is also used as temper. Some sherds only contain sand temper, although these represent an insignifi cant fraction of the pottery (9,9%). Many of the ceramics have rough surfaces, and in some cases evidence of rough molding as well, although others have been smoothed. All of the vessels have been made by hand and coil marks are sometimes visible. In addition, several of the sherds exhibit fi ngerprints. Although the pottery is in general, well-fi red, some sherds have been fi red unevenly, and several of them have dark cores as a result. Most ceramics in this group have been fi red to different shades of orange or red, although four pieces are buff with yellow slip and three additional sherds are gray or black. In several cases, there is evidence of smoking (Fig. 5, 1, 3-5). The fl oral decorative pattern on several sherds resembles those previously excavated at Kultepe (Həbibullayev 1959: 58) and Haji-Firuz (Voigt 1983: 99).

The best parallels for the pottery come from sites in the South Caucasus and the Urmia basin.

2. Analyses were conducted by the CEDAD Laboratory at the University of Salento, Lecce, Italy.

Veli Bakhshaliyev

19

Jars with non-everted rims, with cylindrical, and sometimes conic necks are well known from Kultepe I (Абибуллаев 1982: таблица IX, 1-4) and Haji-Firuz (Voigt 1983: 133-134, fi g. 86-87). In addition, various conic or cylindrical-conic bowls may be connected to excavated examples from Haji-Firuz (Voigt, 1983: fi g. 74-75). There are also parallels to sites in the Ararat valley. The clearest connections are to bowls with an uneven rim, occasionally decorated with a hole beneath the rim (Kushnareva 1997: Figure 10, 2-5). Bowls decorated in this way are also known from Kultepe I (Həbibullayev 1959: tablo 19, 3) and Shomutepe (Ахундов 2012: 56, таблица 203, 7-14; 9-3; 10-458). Similar ornamentation has been reported on pottery of the Byukk culture in Hungary (Археология Венгрии 1980: рис. 125, 2, рис. 130). This style of decoration continues on vessels from the Middle and Late Chalcolithic, demonstrating the persistence of this type of surface treatment. Finally, one sherd was decorated with auriculate relief, a pattern that is widespread at Neolithic sites from the South Caucasus, as to Shomutepe, Aknashen-Hatunarkh, to Geytepe, Arukhlo (Ахундов 2012: с. 56, таблица 209 и 210; Badalyan et al. 2010: fi g. 9-2, 5-11; Kushnareva 1997: fi g. 9, 1-2).

Perhaps the most chronologically sensitive feature of the pottery is the presence of husking trays, which testifi es that the settlement was populated no later than the end of the seventh millennium BC (Fig. 2). However, a radiocarbon determination on charcoal taken from a fi re-pit associated with this architecture returned a calibrated date from 3900-3800 BC. It seems likely, however, that the sample is either intrusive or was contaminated, given both the thinness of the cultural layer and the early parallels for the pottery. Given this, it seems likely that the settlement was used at some point during the VII-IV millennia, with the earlier date probably preferable.

The Yeniyol settlement is located near to Kultepe I, where the Sirabchay and Nakhchivanchay meet. This provides a favorable location for the settlement, which was probably a nodal point in a Neolithic site network. In 2014 in the settlement a 2х2 m sounding was placed at the site, which was taken down to virgin soil. The occupation layer was 1 m thick, and included the remains of brick constructions, ashy layers, stone tools, and ceramics. The sixth stratigraphic layer encountered in the excavation unit contained two construction horizons. It is clear that there were mudbrick structures in this area, however given the small size of the excavation, it is diffi cult to an establish an architectural plan. Most of the pottery can be dated to the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic (Fig. 5, 2). They are fi red in a range of colors, from gray to red and yellow. Some vessels show traces of fi re blackening and soot. All the pottery is handmade and several are quite fragile. The majority of the ceramics are chaff-tempered, with smoothed and sometimes polished or burnished surface. One painted sherd was found here (Fig. 3, 1), while another was found during survey collection at Uçan Agıl, another settlement site (Fig. 3, 2). The decoration is similar to those found at Yanik tepe (Barney 1962: pl. XV, 4) and Yarim tepe (Merpert-Munchaev 1973: pl. XLI). In general, the best parallels for the Yeniyol ceramics come from the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic. Several of the closed shapes have parallel from Haji-Firuz (Voigt 1983: pl. 19, g, h, f) while the bowls fi nd parallels at sites in the Zagros mountains including Mahidasht, Choga Maran and Siahbid (Henrickson 1983: fi g. 87, 15, fi g. 89, 5).

CHALCOLITHIC SITES

Both the eastern and western halves of Nakhchivan contain Chalcolithic Age sites. In the west, most known Chalcolithic sites have been found in the Arpachay valley. Several different varieties of ceramics occur at sites in this area. At Xalac, ceramics are characterized by red slipped pottery, similar to that known from the Urmia basin. Of these sites, Ovçular Tepesi has been the best-studied. Materials from this settlement, particularly pottery fi nd parallels in

NEW NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC SITES IN NAKHCHIVAN (AZERBAIJAN)

20

the Urmia basin, East Anatolia and the Ararat valley (Kushnareva, 1997. Figure 10, 2-5). The Chalcolithic levels of this site, which are characterized by rectangular mudbrick architecture with stone foundations, have been well published (Baxşəliyev et al. 2010, Marro et al. 2011). Most of the excavated material here dates to the Late Chalcolithic Age, however, excavations in 2013 demonstrates that the fi rst construction horizon can be dated to sometime in the Middle Chalcolithic, roughly 4600 BC. These early houses are semi-subterranean. They have rectangular rooms with rounded corners and have usually been dug about 20-30 cm into the earth. Rooms tend to contain a hearth and big storage pits with depths of 1,8-2 m. Inside the rooms, there were household utensils including stone tools and ceramic vessels.

Archaeological survey has documented a range of Chalcolithic sites in the Sirab valley, although these have not been excavated. Descriptions of several of these sites have already been published, although new sites were catalogued during 2013. Among these new sites, are two particularly interesting settlements, Shorsu II and Kaleme Bulak. Both sites are located on the right bank of the Shorsu river. Kalemebulak is particularly deserving of attention. The site is located at the intersection of the river and a small mountain stream and covers no more than 100 sq. m, although its exact size is yet to be determined. Surface collections found stone tools and pottery. The ceramics were made of chaff tempered wares that had been fi red to various shades of red to buff. Numerous obsidian fl akes were found here, but no complete obsidian tools were collected. A fl int sickle-blade, however, was found during the course of our survey. A radiocarbon determination taken at one of the settlements yielded a calibrated date between 3640-3580 BC. It seems likely, however, that these sites were occupied over a longer period. Given their proximity to Kultepe I and the various archaeological materials collected here, they probably date to the VI-IV millennia BC.

ECONOMY

The fauna and fl ora of Neolithic sites in Nakhchivan has not been thoroughly studied, given the recent exposures of many of these sites, making it diffi cult to draw too many conclusions as to the functioning of the Neolithic community. However, obsidian from Kultepe I has been analyzed. Research showed that the people who lived at this site (Бадалян, Кикодзе, Коль, 1996: 257) procured most of their obsidian from Geyhasar (50%) and Sunik (28%). Sunik is also the source of 90% of the obsidian found at another site called Kultepe, located near Marand in Iranian Azerbaijan. Similar obsidian distribution patterns have been recorded at sites in the Urmia basin. Recent research in the Urmia basin has suggested that the obsidian route from Sunik into Iran went through Nakhchivan (Farhang Khademi et al. 2013:1964). The sites along the Sirab river might well represent waypoints on this route; they were probably important participants in long distance obsidian trade.

Late Chalcolithic zooarchaeological and archaeobotanical samples have been studied from Ovçular Tepesi. These analyses demonstrate that sheep and goat were the dominant species raised at Ovçular, with very few cattle present. Several wild species were also present at the site, indicating that hunting remained important here. Moreover, given the location of the settlement on the banks of the Arpachay river, it is perhaps unsurprising that fi sh were also consumed here in quantity (Baxşəliyev et al. 18; Mаrrо et al. 2011: 64). Animal manure, rather than wood, was the dominant fuel used in the houses.

Large quantities of barley were found at the site, demonstrating its use as the most important cultigens. Wheat was also present, however, quantities were limited, and it seems unlikely that it was grown in large enough quantities to provide for the population. We suppose that a certain amount of wheat may have been imported (Mаrrо et al. 2011: 64). Certainly, the diet of the ancient inhabitants of Ovçular Tepesi included more than just barley. According to G. Willcox, grain was probably grown and processed nearby (Baxşəliyev et al. 2010: 19, 76, 99).

Veli Bakhshaliyev

21

Metallurgy and metalworking occupied an important position within the Chalcolithic economy. Copper ore has been found at both Ovçular Tepesi and in the sites of the Sirabchay valley. A jar burial excavated at Ovçular Tepesi contained one perforated axe and two fl at axes. Other examples of fl at axes were also found outside of this burial, totaling fi ve examples. In Zirincli settlement, we found casting molds for the mass production of fl at axes (Marro et al. 2011: 70). Near the village Kakhab incidentally there was also stone casting mold for casting of perforated axes. At Ovçular Tepesi examples of tuyères were also found, attesting to local metallurgical production. Clearly, then the Ovçular Tepesi jar burial testifi es to the existence of a developed metallurgy already in the second half of the fi fth millennium BC (Marro et al. 2011: 69-72).

Further excavation and post-excavation analysis at sites in the Sirab valley has the potential to shed new light on the Neolithic and Chalcolithic culture of the Caucasus, periods that have not been well-known up to now.

References:

Абибуллаев О.А. 1982, Энеолит и бронза на территории Нахичеванской АССР. Археология Венгрии (Каменный век). 1980, Ответственные редакторы: Титов В.,

Эрдели И.Ахундов Т.И. 2012, У истоков Кавказской цивилизации. Неолит Азербайджана.

Шомутепе. Badalyan S. et al. 2010, “The Settlement of Akhnashen-Khatunarkh, A Neolitic Site in the

Ararat Plain (Armenia): Excavation Results 2004-2009” TUBA-AR 13, 185-218. Бадалян Р. С. и др. 1996, “Кавказский обсидиан: источники и модели утилизации и

снабжения (Результаты анализов нейтронной активации)” Историко-филологический журнал 1-2, 245-264.

Barney C.A. 1962, “The Excavations at YanikTepe, Azerbaijan, 1962: Third Preliminary Report I” İraq 1, 54-61.

Bakhshaliyev V. - Seyidov A. 2013, “New Findings from the Settlement of Sadarak (Nakhchivan-Azerbaijan)” Anatolia Antiqua, XXI, 1-21.

Baxşəliyev V. et al. 2010, Ovçulartəpəsi.Aliyev V.H. 1985, “Sədərək eneolit yaşayış yeri” Azərbaycan SSR EA Xəbərləri 2, 61-67. Farhang Khademi et al. 2013, “Provenance of prehistoric obsidian artifacts from Kul Tepe,

northwestern Iran using X-ray fl uorescence (XRF) analysis” Journal of Archaeological Science 40,1956-1965.

Гулиев Ф. и др. 2009, “Раскопки неолитического поселения VI тыс. до н. э. на холме Гойтепе (Азербайджан)” Материалы международного симпозиума «Азербайджан – страна, связывающая восток и запад. Обмен знаниями и технологиями в период «первой глобализации» VII-IV тыс. до н. э.», 26-30.

Kushnareva K.Kh. 1997, Southern Caucasus in prehistory: Stage of Cultural and Socioeconomic Development from the Eighth to the Second Millennium B.C.

Нариманов И.Г. 1987, Культура древнейшего земледельческо- скотоводческого населения Азербайджана.

Merpert N.Y - Munchaev R.M. 1973, “Early agricultural settlements in the Sinjar plain N. Iraq” Iraq 35, 93-119.

Мустафаев И. Д. 1961, Материалы по изучению пшеницы, ржи ячменя и эгилопсов Азербайджана.

Həbibullayev O.H. 1959, Kültəpədə arxeoloji qazıntılar. Mаrrо C. et al. 2011, “Excavation at Ovçulartepesi (Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan). Second

Preliminary Report: The 2009-2010 Seasons” Anatolia Antiqua XIX, 53-100.Seyidov A.Q. 2003, Naxçıvan e.ə. VII-II minillikdə. Voigt M.M. 1983, Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran: The Neolithic Settlement.

NEW NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC SITES IN NAKHCHIVAN (AZERBAIJAN)

22

Veli Bakhshaliyev

23

NEW NEOLITHIC AND CHALCOLITHIC SITES IN NAKHCHIVAN (AZERBAIJAN)

24

Veli Bakhshaliyev

25

ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMPLEXES OF THE CENTRAL WESTERN PART OF AZERBAIJAN IN CONTEXT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL

CULTURES OF THE CAUCASUS

Dr.Farhad Guliyev Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences,

Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography

Dr. Bertille Lyonnet CNRS France

South Caucasia comprised between the Black Sea to the West, the Caspian Sea to the East, and the southern slopes of the Greater Caucasus to the North, marks the geographical transition from Europe to Asia. This area, however, is at the same time also bound to eastern Anatolia by the Smaller Caucasus Mountains. Two major rivers, the Kura and the Araxes, fl ow through it, forming broad fl ood plains from West to East before they fl ow into the Caspian Sea.

In this regard, the archaeological complex called Mentesh which is investigated by Azerbaijan and French archaeologists have yielded unexpected results. Thus, the three main stages of ancient period are refl ected at the archaeological complex that is supposed to belong to Chalcolithic Period. Therefore, Mentesh ancient settlement is considered archaeological site characterized by special feuaters in Caucasian region. This is because it was observed a long period of life dwelling without any interruption from Last Neolithic Period untill last Bronze Age at Mentesh. The Periods, respectivley, continued by sequance from the top layer to bottom layer. At the fi rst stage of archaeological excavations carried out during the excavation it was studied Kurgan burial due to Early Bronze Age at the top layer of the site. This type of burial mound which is known as the tomb under Kurgan contributed highlight points about the main points of Kura-Araxes culture.

Menteshtepe is located in the Tovuz district of Western Azerbaijan along an old stream of the ZeyemChay, which fl ows into the Kura River on its right bank. The site was surveyed by I. Narimanov in the 1960s and described as a small mound that was already greatly damaged (ca. 45 m in diameter and 1 m high) (И. Нариманов: 82, 1987).

Narimanov divided the pottery surface fi nds into three groups, two allegedly belonging to the Shomu-Sulaveri culture with either mineral or vegetal temper, while the third group was not attributed to a culture, but only described as comb-decorated sometimes with applied pellets. Later on, during the 1970s, the site was totally leveled to give place to two dirt roads and to a vineyard equipped with long concrete poles embedded deep in the ground; they were fi nally removed in the 1980s. Later, in the 1990s, the land was divided between two different private owners. We rediscovered its approximate position during a survey conducted in 2006–2007, when we were exploring for Chalcolithic sites for excavations (B.Lyonnet: 41-47, 2009). A small sounding made in 2007 showed that architecture was still visible rather deep under the surface, while the pottery that we found in the gardens was mainly of the combed-type together with a few Kura-Araxes sherds. Although at fi rst the site seemed earlier than the period we were interested in, we decided to open excavations there in order to get a better understanding

26

of the Sioni culture, to which this combed material could be related and which was very poorly known until now.

For the fi rst time in the Southern Caucasus, this will allow a comprehensive view both of the evolution from the local Somu-Sulaveri culture and on the important breaks caused by new relations with other areas. The only major interruption concerns the fi rst half of the 4th millennium BCE (period of the Leilatepe culture) (V. Ollivier/M. Fontugne: in press.)

Period IV covers a long span of time, about one mill. (Fig. 1). Through the material fi nds it correlates with the Kura-Araxes culture. As this phase is at the level of the actual surface of the plain, all of the upper structures – if there were any – have been totally levelled for the cultivation of the vineyard; hence, what is left corresponds only to structures buried into the previous levels. This, of course, greatly affects our comprehension of the period. Nevertheless, two main phases can be distinguished. The earliest phase corresponds to a large collective burial under a kurgan (Fig. 2).

Several 14C dates place it within the second half of the 4th and very beginning of the 3rd mill. BCE.178 The Neolithic and Chalcolithic mound, already unoccupied for the last 500 years, was apparently taken as a readymade kurgan, within which the new population excavated a large and deep funerary chamber (5.1” 4.3”2 m) with a dromos (1.2 m wide) in the middle of its eastern side; the chamber was used for several centuries, until it was set on fi re, probably deliberately. The chamber was delimited by wooden posts that maintained a rather thin wall (5–10 cm) made of perishable material, of which only traces were left (black charcoal and red clay). The sides were precisely oriented towards the cardinal directions. No remains of the roof have been found, but it must have been suffi ciently strong to support a cap of large river pebbles, which were found scattered over a large area immediately under the surface during the fi rst year of our excavations. The initial shape of this cap is unknown, both because of the destruction by fi re which made the roof collapse, and because of the modern destruction of the mound. I. Narimanov does not mention a possible kurgan or pebbles or even Kura-Araxes sherds, so probably no remains were visible at the time of his visit. Two special long stones, probably of symbolical meaning, were found, one set at the entrance of the dromos into the chamber, the other on the opposite side. The fi re caused very severe damages to the upper layers inside the chamber. The bones of the interred were transformed into ashes or were very fragile, although they were preserved apparently in a gangue of burnt clay, from which it was extremely diffi cult to extract them. A study of the remains made by two anthropologists is now almost fi nished and will be published separately. Altogether, ca. 40 persons had been buried in the chamber. Some of the skeletons, or at least parts of them, were still in anatomical order, while clusters of long bones and skulls were discovered along the walls. We can, thus, presume that the chamber was reorganized from time to time to give room for the next burials. Very little funerary material was discovered within the chamber. Aside from three animal skulls (one small bovid and two ovi-caprids), traces of two baskets, ten perforated bone items, and over 300 tiny black or white stone beads (probably steatite), the grave goods consist of in 21 ceramic vessels, none of which is black burnished (see below). If – as mentioned above – the fi nal fi re were intentional, we cannot exclude that metal ornaments or objects that may have accompanied the dead may have been collected for re-use prior to the burning. A few meters south of the chamber, a small symbolic tomb containing the same kind of odd, naturally faceted, stone ‘‘buried’’ in a stone cist and covered up by a pile of small stones like a kurgan was also discovered (Fig. 3). Until

Farhad Guliyev, Berti lle Lyonnet

27

now, no other contemporary structure has been found that provides evidence that the population who buried their dead at Mentesh Tepe also lived nearby.

The later phase is evidenced either by individual burials or by pits and hearths (Fig. 4). Numerous 14C dates situate them between ca. 2800 and 2400 BCE. They are scattered throughout all of the excavated area, and no association can be made between them stratigraphically except through their ceramic content. The pits are extremely numerous, often very large (over 2”2 m), pear shaped, and some of them even reaching the Neolithic levels more than two meters farther down. Their function is not yet clear, although most may have been storage pits. Analysis of their botanical or faunal contents is in progress. They often contain almost complete pots broken into large pieces; in one pit a set of large querns as well as a small animal clay fi gurine were discovered. Besides these domestic pits, two individual pit burials were found: one contained a complete skeleton, while the other is a secondary burial with only parts of the skeleton. The openings of both burials were covered by an oval heap of large river pebbles. We should also mention here a second kurgan, located about 30 m away from the fi rst one and covering an area of about 7”7 m. This second kurgan does not seem as damaged as the other, and no traces of fi re are visible. At present, its cap of river pebbles has only been cleaned from the earth covering it, and will be opened during next excavation season; therefore, we do not know its date yet. Nevertheless, it clearly cuts into the Chalcolithic levels, and we can suppose that it is later than the fi rst kurgan. It may be contemporary with the Kura-Araxes pits and individual burials, many of which are situated not far from it. Conversely, it could also date to a much later period, like the end of the Bronze Age/beginning of the Iron Age, as indicated by a few sherds found nearby. In addition to these pit structures, several small hearths belong to the Kura-Araxes period, and one of them shows the negative imprints of a three partite, possibly portable andiron, which curiously are otherwise not attested at the site. Besides these structures, no architectural remains can be related with certainty to this period, either because of the modern destruction to the site, or because the ancient populations only lived there seasonally in light or semi-subterranean constructions. Further studies on the botanical and faunal remains should help solve this question.

It should be noted that in the recent years, as a result of large-scaled archaeological investigations carried out by Azerbaijan archaeologists it was unrevealed such kind of Kurgan burials which belong to the same culture. These investigations has already obtained more information about the same burial traditons. In this regard, this make the situation noticable to investigate the assumptions were supposed before at the background of new researches. It makes some questions of if we can call this tomb kurgan burial or not tha is belong to Kura-Araxestribes? In general, is it possible to consider Kura-Araxes tribes as carrier of kurgan culture? These and other questions will be the subject of further investigations.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMPLEXES OF THE CENTRAL WESTERN PART OF AZERBAIJAN IN CONTEXT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL CULTURES OF THE CAUCASUS

28

TABLES

Fig. 1. Menteshtepe14C dates of the early Bronze Age period

References:

B. Lyonnet, 2009, «Surveys and excavations in Western Azerbaijan settlement changes and relations with surrounding areas, from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age» In: Eurasien- Abteilung des Deutschen Archaologischen Institut (eZd.), Azerbaijan – Land between East and West. Transfer of knowledge and technology during the ‘‘First Globalization’’of the VII.–IV. mill. BC. International Symposium Baku, April 1–3, p. 41–47.

V. Ollivier/M. Fontugne/B. Lyonnet, Quarternary Science Review, in press Caspian Sea mobility during the Late Quaternary: impact on the upstream hydrosystem and the Neolithic – Chalcolithic settlements of the Middle Kura Valley (Azerbaijan).

B. Lyonnet/ F. Guliyev/ et. all. 2012. «Ancient Kura 2010–2011: The fi rst two seasons of joint fi eld work in the Southern Caucasus» ARCHAOLOGISCHE MITTEILUNGEN AUS IRAN

Farhad Guliyev, Berti lle Lyonnet

29

ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMPLEXES OF THE CENTRAL WESTERN PART OF AZERBAIJAN IN CONTEXT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL CULTURES OF THE CAUCASUS

30

Farhad Guliyev, Berti lle Lyonnet

31

ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMPLEXES OF THE CENTRAL WESTERN PART OF AZERBAIJAN IN CONTEXT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL CULTURES OF THE CAUCASUS

32

PHASE OF TRANSITION TO THE KURA-ARAXESCULTURE IN EASTERN GEORGIA

Dr. Guram MirtskhulavaDr. Guram Chikovani

Georgian National Museum Ot. Lortkipanidze Centre for Archaeology

The Caucasus, one of the centre of a producing economy, is the region lying at the Euro-Asian crossroads. The area has been serving as a connecting link of the old ancient cultures for millennia. Such contacts had become extremely strong since the 4th millennium BC, at the time when exclusively new, epoch-making changes were happening in the Caucasus. It is the period when there had already appeared the earliest metal objects and this remarkable event was followed by unprecedented economic and social changes. Scholars have called the period the Early Bronze and it happened to be the time when the Kura-Araxes culture stemmed from. The pre-existing Neolith-Eneolithic culture had as if disappeared giving way to a brand new and prominent archaeological culture that eventually spread over an enormous territory. Very soon the Caucasus became a substantial centre of metalworking. The territory is in an immediate neighborhood of the old ancient Near Eastern world and it is pretty natural that this promoted region of the world had played a certain role in the further material and mental development of the peoples inhabiting the Caucasus. This is why a problem of the Kura-Araxes culture is in the close organic relations with the origins and the ways of development of the pre-existent culture.

What had been happening in the eastern Transcaucasia before the turn of the Kura-Araxes culture?A close examination of the Transcaucasian Early Farming period was started when there had already been unearthed Nakhichevan Kul-tepe 1. Nine point two meter thick cultural layer came to light after removal of an eight-meter- thick Kura-Araxes one and the excavator O. Abibulaev called it the “Eneolithic”. Similar artifacts belonging to the 4th millennium BC were uncovered in Mili and Karabakh valleys and they were dated by A. Jessen. Soon after several of new sites such as Shomu-Tepe, Toira-Tepe, Babadervish and Gargalar-Tepesi have come to light at Gandja-Kazakh district. Artifacts coming from these sites differ from those of Kul-Tepe. A group of similar habitation sites was uncovered in Kvemo (Lower) Kartli valley such as Shulaveris Gora, Imiris Gora, Gadachrili Gora, Araxlo etc and they were called as the sites of Shulaveri-Shomu-Tepe culture. Nowadays scholars quite properly ascribe the same culture to the period of Advanced Ceramic Neolith [Menabde M, Kighuradze T. 2001: 19-23]. O. Djaparidze believed that the culture of Shulaveri-Shomu-Tepe with its already established forms and substantial traditions, lacking any kind of pre-requisites, had supposedly arrived from the Asia Minor in an almost blank area of Kvemo (Lower) Kartli [Djaparidze O. 2006: 109]. T.Kighuradze thought that O. Djaparidze’s statement had contradicted to the presence of plant seeds, such as cereal crops, millet (Panicum miliaceum) and Sataria italica, coming from the sites as the plants had been quite common in the Caucasus and completely unknown in the Asia Minor world. He also pointed to an acculturated vine plant, domination of circular structures, absence of painted pottery etc [Menabde M. Kighuradze T. 2001: 21].

33

Shulaveri-Shomu-Tepe culture habitation areas are multilayer mounds created in the result of long established habitation at one and the same place. Shulaveri culture had been the only one of this kind in the Pre-Kura-Araxes setting during a certain period of time and scholars tried to fi nd links between the two cultures that appeared a problem of an utmost diffi culty. The only link, so to say, was circular structures of the Kura-Araxes period but the excavators saw that there only their foundations were circular and not the superstructures that were completely different. I. Narimanov explored new sites of the Early Farming period Ali-Kiomek-Tepe in Mughan valley in 1965 and later Chalagan-Tepe and Ilanli-Tepe lying in Karabakh valley. The sites were identifi ed as the ones belonging to the stage that followed after Shulaveri-Shomy-Tepe culture. At the same time other team of scholars was excavating Leila-Tepe settlement which yielded the materials belonging to a completely different culture. High quality wheel-made pottery coming from this site was identifi ed as the ceramics belonging to Ubaid culture [Aliev N. Narimanov I. 2001: 6]. Nowadays there are some more sites belonging to the same culture in Azerbaijan: Chinar-Tepe, Shomulu-Tepe, and Abdal- Aziz-Tepe. They are lying in Karabakh valley and their layers of Ubaid culture are very often covering the ones belonging to the earlier stages. Berikldeebi and a burial mound “Joram’s Gora” (near Kavtiskhevi village) uncovered in Shida (Inner) Kartli region of Georgia belong to Leila-Tepe culture. R. Munchaev considered that Leila-Tepe had belonged to Uruk culture and believed that it was the quest of metal ores that had been the aim of Uruk expansion in the Caucasus [Munchaev R. 2007: 8-9]. Sites of the Early Farming period came to light in Armenia as well and Tekhuta habitation area seems the most distinctive with the artifacts parallel to Leila-Tepe fi nds [Aliev N. Narimanov I. 2001: 7].

The Eneolith period sites have been explored in the north-east Caucasus. These are Ginchi, China, Regudja, Tialing in Chechnia, Shau Lagat, Mishtulag Lagat and Mardshadji Lagat in North Osetia [Chikovani G. 1998: 72-84].

T. Kighuradze had connected Sioni Early Farming period culture settlement to Tsopi one and identifi ed them as so called “Sioni culture” [Menabde M. Kighuradze T. 1981: 28]. Sites of the same type Kvirias Tskali, Damtsvari Gora, Mtserlebis Mitsa, Shavtskala, Nadikari have been uncovered in Kakheti and Abanos Khevi, Bodorna, Akhali Zhinvali, Khertvisi, Chinti, Nichbisi, Kheltubani in Shida (Inner) Kartli regions of Georgia [Chikovani G. 1999]. Here also belong the sites lying in Kvemo (lower) Kartli: Arukhlo 6, Tsiteli Sopeli, Djavakhi, Abelia, Delisi. According to chronological and cultural characteristics of the sites just sited they are in a cultural unity to one another and make a transitional phase between the Sulaveri-Shomu-Tepe and Kura-Araxes cultures. At the same time the latter coexisted with the fi nal stage of Shulaveri-Shomu-Tepe. Scholars point to certain contacts of Sioni culture to west Georgian Neolith-Eneolithic cultures [Djapariddz O. 2006: 271]. L. Nebieridze supposed that there might have been a certain Neolithic culture which should have been in close contact with the local western and central Transcaucasian Mesolithic period and Sioni culture was an advanced form of the previously mentioned Neolithic culture. O. Djaparidze believed in homogeneity of Sioni, the Aragvi river gorge, the Iori-Alazani river basin and west Georgian Eneolithic period settlements and supposed that Sioni culture had intruded in the eastern areas from west Georgia [Djaparidze O. 2006: 271]. At the same time there is an opinion opposing the previous supposition saying that Sioni culture is not the result of infi ltration from the western part of the country. It is a result of cultural unity of western and central Transcaucasia at this very stage of development [Nebieridze L. 2001: 9].

PHASE OF TRANSITION TO THE KURA ARAXES CULTURE IN EASTERN GEORGIA

34

Likewise the sites of the Kura-Araxes period, Sioni culture ones are common almost everywhere either in the valley fl oors or in the foothills and in the intermountain zones. The layers deposited on the habitation areas are rather thin that points to the uniformity of local lifestyle. There are sites where the layers of both of these cultures either cover Shulaver-Shomu-Tepe ones or they themselves are covered by the Kura-Araxes layers [Kighuradze T. 1998:19]. This kind of stratigraphy warrants a chronological place of the culture and it is the fall of the 5th and the earlier half of the 4th millennia BC. Radiocarbon dates coming from Berikldeebi (3955+3778 BC) and Leila-Tepe culture sites, namely Beiuk-Kesik and Poilo 1 (3960+3910 and 3940+3780). Radiocarbon dates coming from Zhinvali village settlement do not seem less interesting 4300+130 (calibrated 4937+322) [Chikovani G. 1999:8].

Scholars consider Azerbaijanian sites as belonging to the phase that follows after the Shulaveri-Shomu-Tepe culture and divide them into two groups. 1. Ilanli-Tepe/Alikiomek-Tepe and 2. Leila-Tepe cultural circles. The fi rst group is considered as an earlier one that is strtigraphically attested at Abdal-Aziz Tepe settlement where Ilanli-Tepe layer is covered by Leila-Tepe one [Aliev N. Narimanov I. 2001:75]. Artifacts coming from Ovchular-Tepe and Khaladj are placed between the fi rst and second layers of Kul-Tepe 1 and there are seen the elements of the Kura-Araxes culture among the artifact coming from them. At the same time Nakhichevan, Mughan and Karabakh Late Eneolith sites keep following the traditions of Shulaveri-Shomu Tepe culture while the sites of Leila-Tepe type strictly differ from them and they are attributed to the north Ubaid-Uruk cultural circle. There is nothing either pre-existent or subsequent of Leila-Tepe pottery in the Caucasus and scholars suppose that the culture moved to the north Caucasus and took part in the formation of Maykop culture [Aliev N. Narimanov I. 2001:94].

Mud brick-built habitation mounds had ceased to exist quite unexpectedly in the eastern Transcaucasia in the 4th millennium BC and the episode was explained by the scholars differently. Some of them believed that the climate had become arid and it was the reason. Others thought that it had happened because of exhaustion of the soil. According to one more opinion the reason had been destruction of communications and halt of earlier impulses coming from the mother land because the Kura-Araxes culture stoppered them. The excavators have quite pronouncedly stated that there is no sign of any contacts between Leila-Tepe group and Kura-Araxes culture. All the earlier habitation mounds had been abandoned for rather a long period of time but life continued well within Sioni cultural circle and there started a generation of the Kura-Araxes culture prerequisites. There is not any kind of fi rmly established conception concerning the origins of the Kura-Araxes culture among the scholars interested in the problem. They suggest that certain groups of population had moved from the south to the north Transcaucasia in the 4th millennium BC and this dislocation triggered the process of further development. In spite of the fact that certain characteristic features of the Kura-Araxes culture have turned up in the Asia Minor earlier cultures the impulses were so week that they seem unable to make a clear picture of a transitional process and it is rather impossible to consider them as a possession of intruded tribes. Pre-Kura-Araxes culture elements were uncovered in Mughan valley in the 1970s. The pottery, uncovered at the site, are mostly chaff-tempered that differ them from the pottery coming from Mili valley. There have come to light examples of polished pottery with long necks and globular bodies, basins with straight sides decorated with warts, lugs and relief ornamentation [Narimanov I. Makhmudov F.1976:88-94]. These Azerbaijanian fi nds and the artifacts coming from the fi rst layer of Samshvilde site even made

+

Guram Mirtskhulava, Guram Chikovani

35

us to suppose that the sites could have been the basis from which the Kura-Araxeses culture had originally stemmed [Mirtskhulava G. 1975:66].

The Kura-Araxes culture is a new stage of development in the Caucasus and adjacent regions. Pottery developed further and acquired completely specifi c features. The Kura-Araxes period clay containers do not bear any signs of potter’s wheel, the feature that had already been familiar in the Caucasian Eneolithic cultures, but at the same time it is almost impossible to imagine how to pot so exquisitely without any use of the equipment so important for potting. Agriculture and animal husbandry had been forming as the main activities of the local economic life, a practice of irrigation was developing, and the soil was cultivated twice in a year, in spring and autumn. As to the use of pulling power it is not based on logical conclusions any longer because there are not only clay models of wheels coming from the sites but also miniature ones of a two-wheeled Georgian-Caucasian cart [Mirtskhulava G. 2000:37]. Religion was becoming diversifi ed and purposeful [Mirtskhulava G. 2005:100-107].

Nowadays scholars consider Kartli (Samsvilde 1st layer, Tetritskaro A layer, Khizanaant Gora E layer, Dighomi, Grmakhevistavi) and Kakheti (the Iori river Sioni, Gremi, Zemo Bodbe) region sites as the ones forming the earliest phase of the Kura-Araxes culture. The sites just mentioned have yielded the pottery with the earliest shapes distinguished with their archaic forms and potted in a slip-shod way but at the same time they bear features that have become diagnostic for the following stage of development. Namely, it is two or three layered fabric of pottery with polished surfaces, relief ornamentation etc. The containers of this earliest phase include examples not characteristic to the following to it Kura-Araxes culture on one hand but still there are typical earlier forms among them so common in the same Kura-Araxes on the other. It is worth noting that a pair of Eneolith period settlements that have remained extant in a form of three damaged pits have come to light while digging the pipe-line at the points of 74 and 77 km, in the vicinity of the same Tetritskaro district Samshvilde habitation area, in a distance of about two or three kilometers from it in 2004-5 [Mirtskhulava G. Demetradze I. 2006:131]. The pits have yielded pottery fragments and pieces of a large domestic animal’s bones. A good size settlement Nachivchavebi dating to the same Eneolith period was explored at the point of 85 km of the pipe-line [Shatberashvili Z. Chikovani G. 2007: 230]. The area has yielded more than 40 pits and a burial. Four more burials belonging to the Kura-Araxes culture have been excavated next to them. The pottery coming from the Eneolith period pits are very interesting. These are typical artifacts characteristic to Sioni-Tsopi-Ginchi cultures but mostly with the features of the Kura-Araxeses. The pottery are pale and brown-grayish, spotted, well polished and if not typical Eneolithic shapes, decoration and relief zigzags resembling the artifacts coming from Samshvilde 1st layer and Chinti one could have easily considered them as similar to the ones belonging to Samshvilde 2nd layer and Samshvilde cemetery i.e. as the artifacts of the Kura-Araxes culture.

These fi nds, once and again, reinforce the opinion that Kura-Araxes culture had already been burgeoning within the area of the eastern Transcaucasia and generally within a cultural sphere of Sioni-Tsopi [Kighuradze T. 1998:6]. The latter (Sioni-Tsopi) has appeared as a certain substratum in the further formation of the Kura-Araxes culture

The problems connected with the genesis of the Kura-Araxes culture, fi xation of the centre of its origination, determination of ethnical origin of the people who had created it and eventually

PHASE OF TRANSITION TO THE KURA ARAXES CULTURE IN EASTERN GEORGIA

36

became the bearers of the culture itself are extremely important and very interesting. The basin of the Kura (Cyrus) and Araxes rivers was considered as one of the main regions where a society of certain people had been creating the Kura-Araxes culture [Djaparidze O. 2006:287]. The earliest sites of this culture are concentrated in Kvemo (Lower) Kartli region of Georgia. At the same time, as we had already noted, the forerunner Early Farming culture materials include the examples characteristic to the subsequent Kura-Araxes culture pointing to the fact that the native Caucasian Eneolithic culture was eventually acquiring the features characteristic to the Kura-Araxes beginning from the earlier half of the 4th millennium BC. This is the moment that enables us to suppose that the Kura-Ar